US Politics

[Desert Fox]

Can't be possibly worse then Obama and Bush combined, 70 Billion aid to Israel lol

This system used in US is like Good cop and bad cop

They both pretend to be good / bad , but they are both working for Israel their Master

People think they are voting for a chance but they all work for same master

Trump is different from the Republican establishment which is why they hate his guts and many of them have sided with Hillary against their own Party candidate, whom most establishment Republicans were/are reluctant to endorse. The neocons (Bush family) hate Trump for his soft stance on Russia and his anti-Globalist rhetoric. Why else are they putting all their weight behind Hillary? Because she's the war candidate.

Trump is a business man, not a Politician. He's not the best candidate, but he's a million times better than Hillary who's itching to start world war 3 and screw over the American working class by raising taxes. She's a globalist.

Regarding israel, Trump even refused to visit israel not once but twice during his campaign, something no other American politician would even consider doing.

Trump Rejects Visit to Israel Before Election: 'I'm Not Traditional' - Haaretz

 

[Desert Fox]

Media Outraged After Trump Tricks Them To Cover Endorsements From Military Heroes


WASHINGTON — The media showed up to the presidential ballroom of the new Trump International Hotel on Friday morning expecting Donald Trump to take questions about whether he still questions if President Obama was born in the United States.

Instead, they got more than a half hour of a variety of military heroes — generals, medal of honor recipients and a gold star wife — expressing support for the Republican nominee. And it all aired live on the cable news networks.

Before the event, Trump tweeted: “I am now going to the brand new Trump International, Hotel D.C. for a major statement.” That was interpreted by the press to mean he was going to address “birther questions.”
That’s because on Thursday, Trump declined to tell the Washington Post if he still questioned whether Obama is an American citizen. But later Thursday night — after his comment took off in the media — Trump’s campaign released a statement saying: “Having successfully obtained President Obama’s birth certificate when others could not, Mr. Trump believes that President Obama was born in the United States.”


Realizing Trump was not using the occasion to address that subject — and instead focus it on the military — many in the press were not happy — and vented on Twitter.

View attachment 334973

Trump’s campaign announced the endorsement of 44 new military flag officers, saying that brings the number up to 164 now.

“I am grateful for the growing support of highly respected retired generals and admirals who have been so successful in defending our country,” Trump said.

At the very end of the campaign event, Trump finally addressed the topic the media was there to hear. “Hillary Clinton and her campaign of 2008 started the birther controversy. I finished it.”

“President Barack Obama was born in the United States,” Trump said. “Period. Now we all want to get back to making America strong again.”

Many reporters, some standing on chairs, began shouting questions over the applause from the guests in attendance. But Trump, having accomplished what he wanted, took none.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/16/m...orsements-from-military-heroes/#ixzz4KRLdKztY




View attachment 334974

Trump trolled their @$$e$ real good. Dishonest Press got a taste of their own medicine.

 

[T-72M1]

Trump trolled their @$$e$ real good. Dishonest Press got a taste of their own medicine.

View attachment 335468​

what's ridiculous is how seriously they're taking this pepe the frog meme

Donald Trump, Pepe the frog, and white supremacists: an explainer
That cartoon frog is more sinister than you might realize.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/post/donald-trump-pepe-the-frog-and-white-supremacists-an-explainer/



another Trump Force One rally

these are great optics, that plane has been one his aces and he's used it brilliantly as a prop.

meanwhile, the race tightens:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/race-tightens-projected-u-electoral-college-vote-reuters-114535676.html

and barry is nervous
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi..._want_to_give_me_a_good_send_off_go_vote.html


muh legacy of ISIS, and Libya, and Syria and DPRK nuke tests and Chinese expansionism.

 

[Desert Fox]

what's ridiculous is how seriously they're taking this pepe the frog meme

Donald Trump, Pepe the frog, and white supremacists: an explainer
That cartoon frog is more sinister than you might realize.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/post/donald-trump-pepe-the-frog-and-white-supremacists-an-explainer/



another Trump Force One rally

these are great optics, that plane has been one his aces and he's used it brilliantly as a prop.

meanwhile, the race tightens:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/race-tightens-projected-u-electoral-college-vote-reuters-114535676.html

and barry is nervous
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi..._want_to_give_me_a_good_send_off_go_vote.html


muh legacy of ISIS, and Libya, and Syria and DPRK nuke tests and Chinese expansionism.

What can we expect from these Libtard morons? They get triggered by anything. If a Trump supporter so much as farts they'll say its a neo-Nazi right wing conspiracy

 

[T-72M1]

but, In all seriousness, even though Pepe had been kind of adopted by the WN/alt-right online crowd at some stage during the Trump primary campaign, the whole thing was limited to geeky 4chan boards, subreddits and twitter etc, a 100% pure online phenomenon of anonymous posters. Crooked Hillary really shot herself in the foot (nien, head) by giving it the biggest platform imaginable when she referenced them by name at that ill-conceived speech in Reno.

What's happened since is even more fascinating, Hillary (perhaps unknowingly) falsely implicated people like Alex Jones, Milo and Steve Bannon as figureheads of the 'alt-right' movement and ignored the ramzpauls, jared taylors and other more legit targets for her ire, possibly for sake of name recognition, but what a horrible move that was, for these guys (Jones etc) have now co-opted the term/movement and are actively pushing a distinctly non-racist nationalist narrative and it's all worked out in the Trump campaign's favor (which was never really racist to begin with)

Black voters are turning from Clinton to Trump in new poll

L.A. Times: Trump Up 7 over Clinton; Breaks 20% Among Blacks

 

[T-72M1]

 

[Desert Fox]

 

[Al-zakir]

Neither of them good candidate. We are doom. I'm not going to vote this time around.

 

[T-72M1]

Donald J. Trump for President rally in Fort Myers, FL

 

[Solomon2]

"Dilbert"​

 

[Desert Fox]

National Poll Shows Donald Trump Surges Among Hispanics, African Americans
​

by Neil Munro8 Sep 20162901


SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER
Donald Trump is favored by one-in-four African Americans and one-in-three Latinos, according to a poll conducted by the Boston Herald and Franklin Pierce University.

The poll of 1,025 likely voters was conducted by RKM Research for Franklin Pierce University and the Boston Herald, from Aug. 31 to Sept. 4.


Overall, Franklin Pierce gets good marks for its polls and the results are in the same ballpark as many other polls. For example, the poll showed Clinton ahead by three points, 44 percent to 41 percent. Eight percent of respondents back Gary Johnson.


The poll showed that Trump has a very favorable rating among among 18.4 percent of 105 Hispanics, and 10.5 percent of 101 African Americans. He also scored a “somewhat favorable” rating among 16.4 percent of Hispanics and 13.3 percent of African Americans. Combined, he gets a positive rating from 35 percent of Hispanics and 24 percent of African Americans.





That’s apparently better than Gov. Mitt Romney, whose nationwide ballot-box score in 2012 was 27 percent support among Hispanics and 6 percent of African Americans.


Trump isn’t going to win a majority of either bloc. Forty-nine percent of Hispanics and 69 percent of African Americans have a “very unfavorable “ view of Trump. But every percent of Hispanic support helps Trump in the critical state of Florida, and every percent of African American support helps Trump in a few northern states, such as Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.


Notably, Hillary Clinton has a “very unfavorable” rating from 48 percent of Hispanics and 15 percent of African-Americans. That leaves Clinton’s “very unfavorable “ score among Hispanics level with Trump’s “very unfavorable” score.


Those ratings, however, have a relatively high error margin because of the low number of Hispanics and African-Americans in the poll.


In comments about the poll, conservative author Ann Coulter said the poll shows significant support among lower-income minorities for Trump’s low-immigration, high-wage, reform plans.


“There is nothing frightening about Trump if you’re here legally, and he is going to bring back jobs and raise your wages,” Coulter told Herald Radio. “They left [their home countries], they like America, they came here, and they’d like a raise,” she said in a Herald Radio interview Sept. 6. “I like that Trump is appealing to all working class people.”

​

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

National Poll Shows Donald Trump Surges Among Hispanics, African Americans
​

by Neil Munro8 Sep 20162901


SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER
Donald Trump is favored by one-in-four African Americans and one-in-three Latinos, according to a poll conducted by the Boston Herald and Franklin Pierce University.

The poll of 1,025 likely voters was conducted by RKM Research for Franklin Pierce University and the Boston Herald, from Aug. 31 to Sept. 4.


Overall, Franklin Pierce gets good marks for its polls and the results are in the same ballpark as many other polls. For example, the poll showed Clinton ahead by three points, 44 percent to 41 percent. Eight percent of respondents back Gary Johnson.


The poll showed that Trump has a very favorable rating among among 18.4 percent of 105 Hispanics, and 10.5 percent of 101 African Americans. He also scored a “somewhat favorable” rating among 16.4 percent of Hispanics and 13.3 percent of African Americans. Combined, he gets a positive rating from 35 percent of Hispanics and 24 percent of African Americans.





That’s apparently better than Gov. Mitt Romney, whose nationwide ballot-box score in 2012 was 27 percent support among Hispanics and 6 percent of African Americans.


Trump isn’t going to win a majority of either bloc. Forty-nine percent of Hispanics and 69 percent of African Americans have a “very unfavorable “ view of Trump. But every percent of Hispanic support helps Trump in the critical state of Florida, and every percent of African American support helps Trump in a few northern states, such as Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.


Notably, Hillary Clinton has a “very unfavorable” rating from 48 percent of Hispanics and 15 percent of African-Americans. That leaves Clinton’s “very unfavorable “ score among Hispanics level with Trump’s “very unfavorable” score.


Those ratings, however, have a relatively high error margin because of the low number of Hispanics and African-Americans in the poll.


In comments about the poll, conservative author Ann Coulter said the poll shows significant support among lower-income minorities for Trump’s low-immigration, high-wage, reform plans.


“There is nothing frightening about Trump if you’re here legally, and he is going to bring back jobs and raise your wages,” Coulter told Herald Radio. “They left [their home countries], they like America, they came here, and they’d like a raise,” she said in a Herald Radio interview Sept. 6. “I like that Trump is appealing to all working class people.”

​

Almost all polls except for LA times are still showing Clinton in the lead.

 

[cloud4000]

It will be interesting to see how the poll numbers square with the actual results. One wonders if the people asked in the poll will actually show up on election day.

 

[RabzonKhan]

The Observer view on Hillary Clinton’s fitness to lead America

Democratic presidential candidate is constantly held to a higher standard than her contemporaries

Hillary Clinton combines intelligence, courage, energy, determination and a powerful sense of destiny. Photograph: ddp USA/Rex/Shutterstock

Observer editorial
Sunday 18 September 2016

In American presidential campaigns, September is the cruellest month. It is the time, following the long summer break, when partisan warfare resumes in earnest. It is the moment when the gloves really come off. The primary season is past, the Democratic and Republican party conventions are over, the presidential nominees have been formally acclaimed. Now begins the hard, fast, unforgiving head-to-head run towards November’s national winning post.

Hillary Clinton should be cantering towards a clear victory. After 25 years in public life, the Democratic candidate has unmatched experience. She has been tested in roles as varied as first lady, senator and secretary of state. She has raised the profile of women in politics to new heights, taking her lifelong role as “ceiling-cracker” (her word) to the doors of the Oval Office. In Donald Trump, she faces a fourth-rate rival who has proved himself unfit for office, a bigoted, ignorant man who feeds off lies and hate. She should be a shoo-in.

Instead, September has seen Clinton stumble. As independent and undecided voters begin to focus on their choice, Clinton’s unusually poor approval ratings are assuming critical importance. Trump’s risible, insincere attempts to move away from the extreme right have given him an undeserved bounce. Clinton’s averaged-out poll lead is down to less than two points. In some surveys, Trump is actually moving ahead.

Clinton’s biggest stumble was a physical one, in New York last Sunday when she fainted, almost fell, lost a shoe and had to be helped away. The subsequent furore, her belated admission she was suffering from pneumonia, the realisation this had been concealed for days and the suspicion she was hiding something worse conspired to highlight one of Clinton’s two big vulnerabilities: lack of trust. Put bluntly, when she states a fact, makes a pledge or offers an explanation, there is a widespread tendency not to believe her.

Trust is always a big issue in presidential campaigns. But in Clinton’s case, as has become customary throughout her career, she is constantly held to a higher standard than her contemporaries. She has, for example, been relentlessly castigated over her use of private email when secretary of state. Ideally, she would have adopted a more secure method of communication. But not even the most rabid Republicans have demonstrated any serious consequences as a result. That predecessors did the same thing and escaped censure is not viewed as a double standard.

Clinton was in charge when the US mission in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked and its diplomats killed in 2012. But to blame her, rather than Barack Obama, or the CIA, or the Marine Corps – whose job is to protect embassies – is grossly unfair. To criticise Clinton for her refusal to divorce Bill after his relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky was revealed is to treat her very differently from the partners of other erring politicians.

Clinton is still dogged by the so-called White House travel office scandal of early 1993, an insignificant affair but one that established the subsequent, long-lasting narrative of a bossy, arrogant, untruthful person who brooks no criticism. Whether the issue is healthcare reform, which she attempted as first lady and was pilloried for, or sensitive questions of equal rights, which she has championed with growing confidence in recent years, Clinton has been hounded at every turn in a hostile, frequently crude manner that other public figures simply do not experience.

A common factor in all of these controversies is the fact that Clinton is a woman – which despite all that has been achieved over women’s rights, remains her other big political vulnerability. For being a Yale-trained lawyer and partner in a leading law firm, for retaining her maiden name of Rodham, for insisting on maintaining an independentlife while married to a president, for pursuing a political career in tandem with motherhood, and now for presuming to become America’s first female leader, it seems a significant chunk of the public and the media cannot forgive her.

Clinton has been called a feminazi, a shrew, a scold, a harridan, even a dominatrix who has emasculated America. Her famous 1992 defence of her troubled marriage – “I’m not sitting here some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette. I’m sitting here because I love him and I respect him” – was misrepresented as proof that she looked down on traditional female roles. She fuelled the misogynist fire by defending her legal career: “I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas but what I decided to do was fulfil my profession, which I entered before my husband was in public life.”

For supposedly outraged conservatives, the storyline of Hillary, untrustworthy betrayer of American womanhood, was set in stone. It has not changed much since, and according to Tammy Vigil of Boston University, Clinton is still struggling with it. “Right out of the gate she was getting slammed for the pantsuits, the hair, the headbands, her appearance, her life choices, and everything she said was so heavily scrutinised. I think she became defensive. And now she’s trying not to be as defensive, but it’s sort of still there.” Even her recent illness was used to fortify this critique: namely, that Clinton, unlike the 17-stone, 70-year-old Trump, cannot take the strain, cannot be trusted to tell the truth, and is unfit for office,

Far from undermining women, Clinton is a standard bearer on the cusp of an historic breakthrough. It may be said she lacks a new vision of governance, that her ideas are rooted in the discredited Clinton-Blair New Democrat/New Labour era, and that, in foreign affairs, she can be both too aggressive (for example, towards Iran) and too cautious, as on Palestinian rights. In personal dealings, she is undoubtedly sometimes prickly and impatient, though these failings are exaggerated.

At the same time, her achievement in overcoming the extraordinary bias and prejudice ranged against her is admirable. Clinton combines intelligence, courage, energy, determination and a powerful sense of destiny. That she is by any measure the best candidate on offer in November cannot be sensibly denied. That she is America’s last defence against Trump’s appalling sexism, racial prejudice and dangerous xenophobia is seriously sobering. Like her or not – totally trust her or not – Clinton deserves support. Non-voters across the globe must hope she will avoid new stumbles, keeps well – and wins.

Hillary Clinton Campaign Stealing From Poorest Donors
​

Wells Fargo fraud department inundated with calls from low-income Clinton supporters reporting repeated unauthorized charges


By Liz Crokin • 09/15/16 2:35pm

View attachment 335375
Hillary for America processed a total of $94 in unauthorized charges to Carol Mahre’s
US Bank account. This follows a pattern in which unwitting donors are charged multiple
times,but always for a total of less than $100, which is a key triggerpoint for banks’
internal action systems. Photo: Courtesy Carol Mahre
​

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is stealing from her poorest supporters by purposefully and repeatedly overcharging them after they make what’s supposed to be a one-time small donation through her official campaign website, multiple sources tell the Observer.

The overcharges are occurring so often that the fraud department at one of the nation’s biggest banks receives up to 100 phone calls a day from Clinton’s small donors asking for refunds for unauthorized charges to their bankcards made by Clinton’s campaign. One elderly Clinton donor, who has been a victim of this fraud scheme, has filed a complaint with her state’s attorney general and a representative from the office told her that they had forwarded her case to the Federal Election Commission.

“We get up to a hundred calls a day from Hillary’s low-income supporters complaining about multiple unauthorized charges,” a source, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of job security, from the Wells Fargo fraud department told the Observer. The source claims that the Clinton campaign has been pulling this stunt since Spring of this year. The Hillary for America campaign will overcharge small donors by repeatedly charging small amounts such as $20 to the bankcards of donors who made a one-time donation. However, the Clinton campaign strategically doesn’t overcharge these donors $100 or more because the bank would then be obligated to investigate the fraud.

“We don’t investigate fraudulent charges unless they are over $100,” the fraud specialist explained. “The Clinton campaign knows this, that’s why we don’t see any charges over the $100 amount, they’ll stop the charges just below $100. We’ll see her campaign overcharge donors by $20, $40 or $60 but never more than $100.” The source, who has worked for Wells Fargo for over 10 years, said that the total amount they refund customers on a daily basis who have been overcharged by Clinton’s campaign “varies” but the bank usually issues refunds that total between $700 and $1,200 per day.

The fraud specialist said that Clinton donors who call in will attempt to resolve the issue with the campaign first but they never get anywhere. “They will call the Clinton campaign to get their refund and the issue never gets resolved. So they call us and we just issue the refund. The Clinton campaign knows these charges are small potatoes and that we’ll just refund the money back.”

The source said that pornography companies often deploy a similar arrangement pull. “We see this same scheme with a lot of seedy **** companies,” the source said. The source also notes that the dozens of phone calls his department receives daily are from people who notice the fraudulent charges on their statements. “The people who call us are just the ones who catch the fraudulent charges. I can’t imagine how many more people are getting overcharged by Hillary’s campaign and they have no idea.”

The source said he’s apolitical but noted that the bank’s fraud department is yet to receive one call from a Donald Trump supporter claiming to have been overcharged by Trump’s campaign. “I’m only talking to you because what Hillary’s doing is so messed up, she’s stealing from her poorest supporters.”

​

Carol Mahre has been charged multiple times after signing up for a one-time donation. Her son, Roger Mahre, is an attorney who filed a complaint with Minnesota’s attorney general. Photo: Courtesy Carol Mahre

Wells Fargo recently came under fire after news broke that various regulators fined the big bank $185 million for opening 2 million phony customer accounts without their customers’ permission. This massive scandal resulted in the firing of 5,300 Wells Fargo employees.

Carol Mahre, an 81-year-old grandmother of seven from Minnesota, is one of the victims of Clinton’s campaign donor fraud scandal. In March, Mahre said she made a one-time $25 donation via Clinton’s official campaign website. However, when she received her U.S. Bank card statement, she noticed multiple $25 charges were made. Mahre, who said in an interview she only contributed $25 because she’s “not rich” and that’s all she could afford, contacted her son, Roger Mahre, to help her dispute the unauthorized charges.

Roger, who is an attorney, told the Observer that he called the Clinton campaign dozens of times in April and early May in an attempt to resolve the issue. “It took me at least 40 to 50 phone calls to the campaign office before I finally got ahold of someone,” Roger said. “After I got a campaign worker on the phone, she said they would stop making the charges.”

Incredibly, the very next day, Carol’s card was charged yet again and the campaign had never reversed the initial fraudulent charges. “I was told they would stop charging my mother’s card but they never stopped.” He added that he knows his mother did not sign up for recurring payments. “She’s very good with the internet so I know she only made a one-time payment.” Roger also pointed out that even if his mother mistakenly signed up for recurring monthly payments then she should’ve been charged for the same amount of money each month, not multiple charges for varying amounts on the same day or in the same month. Furthermore, Roger said that after the campaign was made aware of this situation, the charges should’ve stopped but they never did.

The Clinton campaign overcharged Carol $25 three times and then overcharged her one time for $19, a grand total of $94 in fraudulent charges. The campaign’s overcharges to Carol were just a few dollars short of $100. This is in line with what the Wells Fargo bank source revealed to the Observer.

Since the campaign failed to amend the problem for Carol, Roger contacted her bank, U.S. Bank. However, he ran into problems when he asked U.S. Bank to refund his mother’s money. Roger told the Observer that the bank would not reverse the charges and that a bank spokesperson told him that they had no control over companies that make unauthorized charges. At that point, Roger decided to contact his local news and filed a fraud complaint with Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson’s office on behalf of his mother. After local TV news Kare 11 ran a story, someone from U.S. Bank contacted Roger the next day and said that they had reversed and stopped the charges to his mother’s card.

A representative from Minnesota’s Democratic attorney general’s office told Roger that this problem wasn’t in their jurisdiction and that they had forwarded the case to the FEC. However, FEC spokesperson Julia Queen told the Observer they have no record of the case. “We don’t have it,” Queen said. The Observer contacted Swanson’s office and did not hear back.

Roger did eventually get a letter from a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign. In the letter, the lawyer wrote that his mother would be removed from their donor list; however, the campaign did not take any responsibility for the fraudulent charges.

“They basically said that they weren’t accepting responsibility for this but they’d remove my mom from the donor list,” he said. Roger is less than happy with the way the Clinton campaign has handled this nightmare for him and his mother. “This is a load of crap!” Mahre said. “The self-righteousness of politicians drives me insane. If you and I did this, we’d be thrown in jail. This is theft, fraud or wire fraud—it’s a federal crime!”

Since Carol’s story became public, Roger said he’s heard from other people who have been ripped off by the Clinton campaign. “I’ve heard this is happening to other small donors,” Roger said. “People will donate $25, but then when they receive their credit card statement, they are charged $25 multiple times.”

The incident hasn’t just left a bad taste in Roger’s mouth. Carol decided she’s not going to vote for Hillary even though she’s voted for the Democratic presidential nominee every election since President Dwight Eisenhower won reelection in 1956. “My mother is a lifelong Democrat and she’s voted every election in her life for a Democrat but she’s not going to vote for Hillary,” Roger said.

The New York Times reported in 2007 that Clinton’s first presidential campaign had to refund and subtract hundreds of thousands of dollars from its first-quarter total often because donors’ credit cards were charged twice. Additionally, it was reported that Clinton had to refund a stunning $2.8 million in donations, three times more than the $900K President Barack Obama’s campaign refunded.

Another bank source told the Observer that Clinton’s motivation in purposefully overcharging donors is not only to rake in more money for her campaign but also to inflate her small donor numbers reported to the FEC. “This gives a false impression about how much money Clinton has raised,” the source said. “The money that the bank has refunded would not be reflected in the FEC filings till after the election. This gives off the illusion to the public that her support and the amount she’s raised is much greater than what it is in reality.”

A Clinton campaign worker named Kathy Callahan, who worked on Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2008, claimed in a blog post that Clinton fraudulently overcharged her by several thousand dollars. She wrote that she voluntarily left the campaign’s finance committee after she discovered $3,000 in unauthorized charges made by Clinton’s campaign to her Visa card. Callahan said the unauthorized charges caused $400 in overdraft and bank charges and put Callahan over the legal donor limit. Callahan said that after a month of “begging and pleading,” she wasn’t able to get her money back until she threatened to go to authorities. However, when she was finally refunded her money the Clinton campaign refused to compensate her for the $400 in overdraft and bank charges.

Callahan also wrote that Matt McQueeney, who worked in the compliance and accounting department at Clinton’s campaign headquarters at the time, told her, “What happened to you with credit card errors is happening to others.” McQueeney reportedly parted ways with the Clinton campaign shortly after this incident occurred. Backing up what McQueeney claimed, there were several incidents similar to Callahan’s reported in 2008. Callahan and McQueeney could not be reached for comment.

In 2001, the Clintons were accused of attempting to steal items donated to the White House during Bill’s presidency as he exited office. There was $190,000 worth of gifts in question that the Clintons shipped to their then new estate in Chappaqua, New York. Multiple donors said that they had understood that the items they had donated during Clinton’s presidency were to stay in the White House as part of the 1993 White House redecoration project. Initially, the Clintons claimed that the items in question were given to them prior to President Clinton taking office; however, government records proved otherwise. Facing strong criticism, the Clintons decided to return several items including $28,500 in furnishings and they paid $86,000 for other gifts.

Murmurs of theft are nothing new to the Clintons. In 2001, the Clintons were accused of attempting to steal items donated to the White House during Bill’s presidency as he exited office, including $190,000 worth of gifts in question that the Clintons shipped to their new estate in Chappaqua, New York. But Bill begs to differ.

He recently compared himself to Robin Hood and said that through their foundation he asks people with money to give to people who don’t have money. In reality, the Clintons steal from people who have little money and they’re robbing some of Hillary’s most impoverished supporters—including a poor elderly grandma—to fund her campaign.

for @RabzonKhan

​

Interesting, I have been donating since 2015 I never had a problem.

Both candidates are terrible. I personally will not contribute in any way to the election of either. I refuse to be held accountable for their actions as President. I don't want blood on my hands. Maybe people will actually turn out to vote and will pay attention to general election polls before voting in future primary elections.

If Hillary becomes President, she will do a terrible job on economic issues for the middle and working class. The rich will capture most of the income growth in this country yet again (as they have done since the 1980s/1990s). The Democratic Party at-large will be left holding the bag. A bad Democratic President can do more damage long-term than a bad Republican President.

We had a candidate that would have won by a significant margin and would have had long coattails for down-ballot candidates across the country, not just in "blue" states or districts. You people chose the other one. Hillary got about 55% of elected delegates. A terrible number considering the circumstances. But she "won" nonetheless.

You reap what you sow.

Well, it’s your vote, your choice. But I will vote for Hillary Clinton because I believe she has better policies on immigration, economy, climate change, woman’s rights, fair treatment of minorities, increasing the minimum pay, small businesses, foreign policy, nuclear non-proliferation and war on terror.

 

[Anubis]

It will be interesting to see how the poll numbers square with the actual results. One wonders if the people asked in the poll will actually show up on election day.

We have a horrible voter turnout for a country that calls itself the greatest democracy in the world....the electoral college should be changed...why would I vote if my vote doesn't count?